> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:27PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>
> > http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
> > that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
>
> if I follow this correctly, the risk is for "localhost.example.org" to enable
> anyone on the same
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:27PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
> that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
if I follow this correctly, the risk is for "localhost.example.org" to enable
anyone on the same host as the vic
still do... both
localhost.
1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa.
::1.ip6.arpa. #
# yeah yeah... shoot me
--bill
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:48:45AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 12:19 +0200 4/3/08, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I may have missed this, but I'd like to h
At 12:19 +0200 4/3/08, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I may have missed this, but I'd like to hear the lists opinion about
>this article:
>http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
>that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
My problem with that doc is it says "uh, d
Hi,
I may have missed this, but I'd like to hear the lists opinion about
this article:
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
I know that localhost entries were encouraged in RFC 1537 but that one
is obsolted by RFC 1912 w
